Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 07, 2019

Police laid Connor Betts down for good about 30 seconds after he first fired his rifle into the Saturday night crowds of Dayton, Ohio's main bar district. Thirty-two seconds, to be exact, according to an ATM camera that captured the sounds of those frantic and deadly moments between Betts' first shot and the last one fired by police. The six good guys with guns never really had a chance to prevent carnage. The best they could do -- and they really did do their very best -- was to limit the mayhem.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

In just 32 seconds, Betts was able to kill nine people and shoot 14 others non-fatally. (Several others sustained non-gunshot injuries in the sprinting chaos Betts' attack produced on the street, police explained Monday.)

Betts was just one stride from the front door of a bar into which hundreds of people had just fled his fusillade when police finally stopped him. Had it taken even one more second to neutralize him he could well have gained entrance and been staring at what amounted to a human shooting gallery.

Police recovered 41 shell casings matching the .223 caliber ammunition that Betts had used in his Anderson Manufacturing AM-15. He fired more than once per second – possibly much more, as officers cannot be certain they found every casing.

All in just half a minute.

Betts had attached a double-drum magazine with a maximum capacity of 100 rounds to his AM-15. Police said he had other high-capacity magazines on his person that gave him a total maximum capacity of 250 rounds.

Absolute insanity....

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-07 09:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If you look at the CNN massacre porn, yeah he's dropping them really fast. Not aiming either.

People are just falling down dead, almost like some kind of Japanese video game. It's unreal to look at.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-07 09:48 AM | Reply

...but it's not an assault weapon!

"Righties" favorite retort when deflecting for, and defending mass murders.

#3 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-08-07 10:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

yeah...what i'm afraid of is the real honest to god psychopath that plans...scope someplace out that has rear doors that he can keep from opening from the outside before he heads inside...a few rounds when he walks in and then wait till they're packed tight trying to get out and then he starts shooting.
that's why magazines with more than 3 shot capacity should be unavailable.

#4 | Posted by ABlock at 2019-08-07 10:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Not aiming either.

With these weapons you don't have to. They are designed to inflict the maximum damage to human targets without having to aim well.

"The bullet from a handgun is -- as absurd as it may sound -- slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.

The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It's relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. "It would just turn it to dust," says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, "the liver looks like a jello mold that's been dropped on the floor." And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange.

When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissues ripples as well -- but much more violently. The bullet from an AR-15 might miss the femoral artery in the leg, but cavitation may burst the artery anyway, causing death by blood loss. A swath of stretched and torn tissue around the wound may die. That's why, says Rhee, a handgun wound might require only one surgery but an AR-15 bullet wound might require three to ten."

www.wired.com

That's why they are the weapon of choice of mass shooters and why they should be banned.

#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-07 11:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

That's why they are the weapon of choice of mass shooters and why they should be banned.
#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-07 11:02 AM |

Liar.Weapon of choice for mass shooters remains the handgun.

www.statista.com

#6 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-07 11:20 AM | Reply

...but it's not an assault weapon!
"Righties" favorite retort when deflecting for, and defending mass murders.
#3 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-08-07 10:09 AM

That's just as often as "Lefties' deflect for and defend child rapists, right?

Stop pretending that Anyone is defending criminal actions. It's dishonest.

#7 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-07 11:24 AM | Reply

#7
Stop pretending that weapons of mass destruction are not a huge component of the level of mayhem these killers perpetrate, and stop pretending that in every discussion about automatic weapons here gun lusters do not devolve into "---------- definition of terms" rather than definition of how to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

#8 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-08-07 01:45 PM | Reply

Blaming the weapon because you do not want to acknowledge that the shooter was, again another left-leaning nutzoid. After all, you all are blaming the right for the El Paso shooter so you on the left must 'own' this one. Amazing, is it not, that the majority of mass shooters over the past decades tend to be dems/lefties.

#9 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-07 02:31 PM | Reply

Stop pretending that Anyone is defending criminal actions. It's dishonest.

#7 | Posted by Avigdore

Stop pretending that righties haven't defended civilians being able to buy weapons that can kill dozens of people in seconds.

Your party is the reason this guy was able to have a machine that could do this.

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-07 02:44 PM | Reply

Blaming the weapon because you do not want to acknowledge that the shooter was, again another left-leaning nutzoid. After all, you all are blaming the right for the El Paso shooter so you on the left must 'own' this one. Amazing, is it not, that the majority of mass shooters over the past decades tend to be dems/lefties.

#9 | Posted by MSgt

Do other countries not have nutzoids? How come american nutzoids are so much more effective and frequent with their mass murders?

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-07 02:45 PM | Reply

Blaming the weapon because you do not want to acknowledge that the shooter was, again another left-leaning nutzoid. After all, you all are blaming the right for the El Paso shooter so you on the left must 'own' this one. Amazing, is it not, that the majority of mass shooters over the past decades tend to be dems/lefties.

#9 | Posted by MSgt

PS false equivalence.

Show me the leaders of the left who are scaring the base into killing innocent people like your cult leader does.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-07 02:47 PM | Reply

#9
Sarge, How bout a bazooka? a flame thrower, a Granade launcher? A mortar? Are all these ok too?

#13 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-08-07 02:53 PM | Reply

There are some ammo......s here who could have attained that kill rate with a lever or bolt action rifle, just ask them.

Others could have done it with a stick, a knife, a hammer, second-hand smoke, or a car antenna.

OK, maybe with the car antenna.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2019-08-07 02:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

PS false equivalence.

Show me the leaders of the left who are scaring the base into killing innocent people like your cult leader does.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

He can't.

Trump is no different than an Imam stoking radical Islamic followers to violence

#15 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-07 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

How about we compare the three recent attacks in the US to Afghanistan... NPR Taliban Attack

Terrorism is terrorism. It happens all the time in this country just like in that 3rd world hell hole that is Afghanistan. CAN WE PLEASE ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

#16 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-07 03:52 PM | Reply

32 seconds, at least 41 bullets fired, 23 people shot, 9 killed.

Can someone explain to me how allowing any civilian to own such a weapon is justified?

#17 | Posted by Foreigner at 2019-08-07 04:06 PM | Reply

Can someone explain to me how allowing any civilian to own such a weapon is justified?

#17 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER

Simple. He broke the law.

Betts had attached a double-drum magazine with a maximum capacity of 100 rounds to his AM-15. Police said he had other high-capacity magazines on his person that gave him a total maximum capacity of 250 rounds

Those high capacity magazines are illegal.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-07 04:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Can someone explain to me how allowing any civilian to own such a weapon is justified?

Because our Founders thought it prudent that citizens should have access and possession of 3-shot-per minute muskets so they could bind together in 'well regulated militia(s)' and protect the nascent colonies from foreigners equally armed. Then our subsequent Supreme Courts (and Congresses) say this 18th century right codifies the personal ownership of slightly-modified weapons of modern warfare with very few restrictions.

Isn't it obvious?

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-07 04:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He broke the law.

Not in Ohio. Didn't actually read the story did you?

In the few states that ban high-capacity magazines, it is illegal to make, sell, or purchase such equipment. Nine states have such bans. Eight of those cap magazine capacity at 10 rounds for "long guns" like the AM-15 Betts used. The ninth, Colorado, allows magazines as large as 15 rounds.

Kentucky-based Anderson Manufacturing need not worry about such laws. Neither did Betts have to fret. Ohio, Kentucky, and damn near everywhere else in the country has decided these things are fine.

#20 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-07 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Those high capacity magazines are illegal.

#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-08-07 04:10 PM | FLAG: "

I'm ignoring #20 in responding to this JeffJ - that's a separate issue and one about which I have little knowledge.

But your response to my post seems a little blinkered. My question was how is such a weapon justified, which to me means all of the weapon. i.e. the body of the AM-15, as well as the magazine. Having an illegal high capacity magazine would be moot if the gun had a limited fire rate. So again, how is a virtually no-aim, rapid fire weapon capable of accepting legal or illegal high capacity magazines justified?

This is not a weapon of defense; it is very much a weapon of attack.

#21 | Posted by Foreigner at 2019-08-07 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Isn't it obvious?

#19 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2019-08-07 04:22 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I get it, but that is of course why I used the word justified. The facts that you set out are why ownership of such a weapon is legal. The question is why does US society consider such ownership justified, regardless of the obvious damage wrought by such weapons. Is there some off-setting good done by civilian ownership of such weapons that goes unpublicized?

#22 | Posted by Foreigner at 2019-08-07 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good guy: 1
Bad guy: 23

This is what the Founders intended, according to gun lovers, and people whose wives won't let them have one.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What exactly would "a good guy with a gun" have done in this case?
a. run
b. hide
c. fumble with the weapon and possible shoot him/herself
d. in a panic, fail to ascertain line of sight/possibility of innocents in crossfire/conceal him/herself for safety
e. blunder a few wild shots, then get shot
f. all of the above

#24 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-08-07 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sorry Foreigner, I was being facetious. Nothing logical justifies applying 17th Century externalities to a 21st Century leap in technology. IMO, if the Founders were alive today they would have taken a wholly different tack with the 2nd Amendment. But they aren't and there's too much money and emotion invested in the status quo.

Hence,here we are.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-07 06:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"IMO, if the Founders were alive today they would have taken a wholly different tack with the 2nd Amendment."

Or they might say freeing the slaves is the reason for all our gun violence, since it's largely concentrated in poor black ghettos.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 06:55 PM | Reply

#25 - no need to apologize - I understood you were being facetious; I was just running with your post to highlight legal versus justifiable.

In my view there are a few modern interpretations of the intentions of the founding fathers that they would find hard to understand.

#27 | Posted by Foreigner at 2019-08-07 07:39 PM | Reply

Can someone explain to me how allowing any civilian to own such a weapon is justified?

#17 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER AT 2019-08-07 04:06 PM | REPLY

That's a really slow firing rate. He could have done that with low 10 round mags. That carbine can shoot at triple that rate. He took the time to aim.

You know you can own an AR-10 right? Same modular platform, just bigger and 260% more kinetic energy.

#28 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 08:16 PM | Reply

That's why they are the weapon of choice of mass shooters and why they should be banned.
#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-07 11:02 AM |
Liar.Weapon of choice for mass shooters remains the handgun.
www.statista.com
#6 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-08-07 11:20 AM

By number of instances nearly all rifle users also carried a handgun, meaning by instance half of your handgun statistics are part of an arsenal including the rifle.

Either are rarely the exclusive weapon - mass murderers seem to keep the handgun as their last resort, if they are not already using one in each hand.

Did you read Nixon's post above explaining the physical trauma assault rifles cause versus handguns? That said, why would you oppose banning assault rifles entirely? Is there a good reason for compromise?

#29 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-07 08:38 PM | Reply

"That's a really slow firing rate. He could have done that with low 10 round mags. That carbine can shoot at triple that rate. He took the time to aim.

You know you can own an AR-10 right? Same modular platform, just bigger and 260% more kinetic energy.

#28 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2019-08-07 08:16 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I would be the first to admit that I know almost nothing about fire arms, so I'm happy to defer to your apparent technical knowledge. There are, however, occasions where technical knowledge runs into real world consequence. As an example your statement " that's a really slow firing rate" is irrelevant in the real world because it was fast enough to shoot 41 rounds and hit 23 people in 32 seconds, aimed or not. If it can indeed fire more rounds per second, that doesn't help.

I wouldn't know an AR-10 if it bit me on the ass, but if it does what you say, then I'd happily dump it in the bin with all similar weapons marked " not fit for ownership by civilians".

#30 | Posted by Foreigner at 2019-08-07 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I don't believe this could be achieved with a revolver or bolt action rifle.

#31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-07 09:36 PM | Reply

What exactly would "a good guy with a gun" have done in this case?
a. run
b. hide
c. fumble with the weapon and possible shoot him/herself
d. in a panic, fail to ascertain line of sight/possibility of innocents in crossfire/conceal him/herself for safety
e. blunder a few wild shots, then get shot
f. all of the above

#24 | Posted by e1g1

Or be mistaken by the cops as a shooter and killed.

This happened in Texas. Out of 3000 people there had to be at least one 'good guy with a gun.'

There was a hero who threw bottles at the shooter to divert his attention from people he was shooting at.

Survivor Christopher Grant recalls to Chris Cuomo in an exclusive interview that the shooter "shot [victims] in the head" as he walked by people "on the ground" and "praying in Spanish." Yes -- it's that disturbing.

As Grant, who was ultimately shot in the back but survived, tells CNN from a hospital bed in Del Sol Medical Center, shoppers begged the shooter not to kill them as he opened fire in the parking lot, then roamed the Walmart itself.

"He had no remorse for their lives at all," Grant, who says he threw bottles at the gunman in an attempt to deter him, stated. Make no mistake: This was an act of heroism. According to Grant, the shooter only noticed him because he was throwing the bottles Grant, conceivably, could have hidden and run without drawing attention to himself, but he wanted to do his best to stop the massacre.

"I was like, oh my God, this guy is shooting at me," Grant told Cuomo, describing the moment he realized he had the shooter's attention on him. It was when he ducked from a bullet -- only to be shot in the back anyway -- that he was trapped on the floor, watching others beg for their lives in Spanish. Somehow, Grant was able to get himself back up. He ran to the auto department while the gunman went to the bank, near the store's restrooms.

At the auto department, Grant found U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent Donna Sifford, who had left her firearm at home that today. He told her about the shooter inside the store before Sifford and two Walmart employees got him into a truck and rushed him to the local hospital.

Here's the video of Grant's recount of this traumatic event:

www.youtube.com

#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-08 04:00 AM | Reply

Terrorism is terrorism. It happens all the time in this country just like in that 3rd world hell hole that is Afghanistan. CAN WE PLEASE ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
#16 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-07 03:52 PM

What do you propose be done about it? These 3 attacks, one from a right-leaning person, one from a left-leaning person, and one who targeted both...none illegally purchased their gun, none had a criminal or diagnosed mental deficiency that would have precluded owning a firearm. That means expanded background checks and waiting periods would have done nothing.

An honest answer can't be to ban assault weapons, not only do they not even make up a majority of the weapons used in mass shootings, the killers could still have produced similar results using modern handguns. Those handguns still being the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings by nearly a 3:1 ratio.

You're left with banning all firearms (unless you have another idea?). This means you need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The method to do so is set forth in the Constitution. It is very straight forward. I have no problem with anyone who wants to repeal the Amendment. Just be honest about what it is you're setting out to do. Make sure your choice of representative is very vocal about their plans. Surely if it is the right choice, the popular choice, victory will be yours.

#33 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-08 07:46 AM | Reply

You're left with banning all firearms

#33 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-08 07:46 AM | Reply

Nonsense. Mass shootings are at least in part a cultural problem. People learn to take out their whatevers using violence. That's a function of what they've learned. It's a function of what they've been taught to value. Its a function of what they've been taught to see and value in themselves. In this country. In other countries the cultural norm is different and you don't see these sorts of mass killings nearly as much.

Cultural norms are modified all the time. The idea that you must get rid of the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns in order to address mass killings is something that you've been taught, something you believe to the point you insist that others must want to get rid of guns entirely in order to be "honest".

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2019-08-08 08:20 AM | Reply

the killers could still have produced similar results using modern handguns.

#33 | Posted by Avigdore at

This slays me, pun intended.

Yes you "could" have the same results in terms of mayhem but you'd have to work harder to get it.

No reason not to get rid of 100 round mags, or semi-automatic weapons with viciously fast muzzle velocities. No reason at all.

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2019-08-08 08:33 AM | Reply

Do nothing, keep dying.

- Avigdore

#36 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-08 08:50 AM | Reply

As an example your statement " that's a really slow firing rate" is irrelevant in the real world because it was fast enough to shoot 41 rounds and hit 23 people in 32 seconds, aimed or not. If it can indeed fire more rounds per second, that doesn't help.

#30 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER AT 2019-08-07 08:55 PM | FLAG:

but it does. It means you have to expand your aims for a firearm ban to get your intended results. You achieved that by me just mentioning the AR-10. I'm super helpful.

#37 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-08 08:52 AM | Reply

That's why they are the weapon of choice of mass shooters and why they should be banned.

#5 | Posted by Nixon

That's not the weapon.

That's the round.

You're saying ban .223/5.56?

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-08 11:57 AM | Reply

#7
Stop pretending that weapons of mass destruction are not a huge component of the level of mayhem these killers perpetrate, and stop pretending that in every discussion about automatic weapons here gun lusters do not devolve into "---------- definition of terms" rather than definition of how to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

#8 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

Pro-tip: lay off the inflammatory rhetoric and you might be surprised at how readily people engage in discussion other than them trying to correct your statements.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-08 11:58 AM | Reply

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2019-08-08 08:20 AM
You missed this part : unless you have another idea?
I queried for another idea. If you have one, share it. Statements of 'Cultural norms' being modified is not helpful or useful in solving the problem.

Lie:
Do nothing, keep dying.
- Avigdore
#36 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-08-08 08:50 AM

Truth:
you need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The method to do so is set forth in the Constitution. It is very straight forward. I have no problem with anyone who wants to repeal the Amendment. - #33 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-08 07:46 AM

zarnon, why do you feel the need to lie to make a point?

#40 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-08 01:36 PM | Reply

Because our Founders thought it prudent that citizens should have access and possession of 3-shot-per minute muskets so they could bind together in 'well regulated militia(s)' and protect the nascent colonies from foreigners equally armed. Then our subsequent Supreme Courts (and Congresses) say this 18th century right codifies the personal ownership of slightly-modified weapons of modern warfare with very few restrictions

Three shot per minute muskets were state of the art and identical to military equivalent when the Amendment was created.

#41 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-08-08 01:49 PM | Reply

Three shot per minute muskets were state of the art and identical to military equivalent when the Amendment was created.
#41 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-08-08 01:49 PM

You're commenting from a position of ignorance.
1780 20 shots per minute.
blog.catherinedelors.com

When and where was the US constitution written? 1787 in Philadelphia, PA

#42 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-08 02:31 PM | Reply

#42 | Posted by Avigdore

"They were extremely expensive, rather fragile, and not widely used by regular armies"

Invented in 'the late 1780's"

Swing and a miss!!!

#43 | Posted by americanunity at 2019-08-08 05:00 PM | Reply

AVIGDORE didn't read his own linked article.

Typical gun nut looking for excuses why we should do nothing.

If a box of defective ammo blew up in his wife's face he'd be demanding change ...

#44 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-08 05:03 PM | Reply

6 out of 9 African Americans but no hate crime.

#45 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-08-08 07:28 PM | Reply

An article from a radiologist who's been on call for two mass shootings. One was the Parkland shooting (AR-15) and the other was the Ft Lauderdale airport (9 mm).

"I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair -- and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

...

I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic -- moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat -- and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

www.theatlantic.com

#46 | Posted by Pirate at 2019-08-08 09:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Do other countries not have nutzoids? How come american nutzoids are so much more effective and frequent with their mass murders?"

And here's the whole gaffe of the gun argument. If you do the research, you will find that the US, on average, has a rate of 5 gun murders per 100k people. This number is incredibly low compared to many countries and on par with many other countries...even countries where guns are illegal. Unfortunately, Dems are xenophobic and always counter with "But that includes all nations and not developed nations". In other words, people in non-developed nations are not important and their murders are acceptable to Dems. But, for everyone else who isn't xenophobic, America's gun deaths are very low and middle-of-the-pack with the rest of the world. Sure, there are those who are better than us just like there are countries better than everyone else at other things.

So, to answer your question, American nutzoids are no more or less effective than nutzoids in any other country and they are not more frequent, and the facts support that assumption. In fact, the only people who believe your statement are privileged Americans who think our lives are worse than those in every other country in the world, which is ridiculously absurd. Just because you read headlines and don't actually do research is no excuse for trying to spread hate and misinformation.

#47 | Posted by humtake at 2019-08-09 12:08 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort